Nvidia 572.16 bricked my GPU!

[Tinek]

If you were calling up or dealing with live chat then yes, but many times you can be on a back and forth where they have ample opportunity to check, or even ask for escalation and they still try the same thing.

Bad internal SOP or just bad faith. Sometimes caused by consumer being so difficult to deal with (yelling at people, threatning to sue etc.) that they simply want to make it as difficult as possible for the consumer, without outright breaking the law. Which is why I always underline, it's best to be assertive but polite and calm when dealing with customer support. More often than not they want to help, not always effectively. If they really do not, then ombudsman is usually the best course of action. Sometimes social media contact can help a lot - e.g. with my Internet provider if I open a ticket I'll wait 2 weeks for response, but if I poke them on X they will resovle my issue within 1-2h usually.

Some companies just try to have policies which contradict UK consumer law and you have to go to your credit card company to get what you're acutally entitled to (there was a big thing with Currys a few years back on like watchdog and so on, not sure if they improved things since then).

This is why I always use CC to buy things online, however, issuing a chargeback means you're banned from shopping there for life, usually. Sure, it hurts them, sure it's your right, but it's more of a nuclear option when nothing else works. I would use ombudsman first instead of slamming the door for life like that, unless no other choice.

In effect the "person you're speaking to" IS the company for all intents and purposes, as you say they will be following company SOP and often these contradict law, escalating often doesn't get you around these as even the managers are told to follow the same SOP.

Yes and no. As long as you treat them as a person, you can get much more than just abusing them. Nobody working in CS likes that job, they do it as no other choice usually and they have often more power than we think they do - so proper rapport can often help a lot. I gave few examples but I have plenty more when I got much more I asked for with just proper rapport - even if it was against their SOP. Unlike the law, SOP can be... ignored at times.

 

[Tinek]

given the ambiguity, its always much better to send the card to the retailer and allow them to send it to the manufacturer, you are absolutely 100% covered in that case with zero ambiguity
if they flat refuse but tell you to send it to the manufacturer then you are also covered as you have it in writing that their repair process is to have you send it directly to the manufacturer
but you should definitely talk to the retailer first without just sending it off under your own bat

That's a perfectly ok way to do it, yes. It's always best to have things in writing, especially if you want to put a bit more pressure on manufacturer or retailer, or just use it for case with ombudsman if such need arise. That said, worth mentioning here is that people sometimes send item and not tell retailer who then refuse to accept it as no RMA number - that's not legal. They can't do that, they have to accept everything. RMA speeds things up, it's easier to find a proper case/ticket/description etc. But it's not a legal requirement.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

consumers need to own it

What you're basically saying is that it's ok for retailers to disregard consumer law if the consumer isn't knowledgable on said law. This is what ****** me off about this whole topic. It should not matter what you do or do not know, how loud or softly spoken you are, you should be given what is owed to you BY LAW without any fuss or misidrection. If a little old granny who wouldn't say boo to a goose takes in a broken TV, she should not get a worse experience than some lawyer who is willing to raise his voice to get what is owed. I also don't care to distinguish between malice or incompetence.

I had 2 washing machines, back to back that leaked recently. Not only did the retailer drag me onto a joint call with the manfacturer (despite me clearly expressing that I was exercising my consumer rights with the retailer, ergo nothing to do with the manufacturer) but would not replace the machine until I had willingly made it leak again and recorded a video of it as evidence. As if I had anything to gain from going through all the hassle of changing a damn washing machine that I'd just bought.

 

[andybird123]

This is why I always use CC to buy things online, however, issuing a chargeback means you're banned from shopping there for life, usually. Sure, it hurts them, sure it's your right, but it's more of a nuclear option when nothing else works. I would use ombudsman first instead of slamming the door for life like that, unless no other choice.

If I buy a multi-hundred-pound item that goes faulty within warranty and they refuse to repair/replace/refund, then there is zero chance of me shopping there again.
Having said that, I've never been "banned" from somewhere for going through my credit card company, it isn't even called a "chargeback" in the UK, thats a US thing and the process here is different, it follows a quasi legal process where the CC company determine if legally you are entitled to a refund and then if you are they issue one, so the company are in no worse of a position after the process as you only get a refund from the CC company if you are legally entitled to one. I've done this with major retailers and I'm still able to purchase from them.

There is no "retailers ombudsman", there is a financial one but to get access to that you would already have had to go through the CC company and be unhappy with the result to then take it to the ombudsman.

Interestingly, there is a Retailers ADR (alternative dispute resolution) website, and one of their first tips in dealing with retailers is... buy things on credit card so that you can deal with the CC company instead of having to take retailer to ADR

 

[danoliver1]

So if this problem affects only a handful of cards then that's like 99% of the the cards in circulation.

 

[Tinek]

What you're basically saying is that it's ok for retailers to disregard consumer law if the consumer isn't knowledgable on said law.(...)

I said no such things. You should stop assuming everything someone says or does is negative and against you somehow - that is not how things work. If you approach contacts with customer support like this usually, I am not surprised you encounter loads of friction.

What I am saying, to repeat myself, is to stop treating adults like children and maybe they will finally start reading things before signing or using them, for their own good. It's the job of each and every person to find out their rights and how to use them - that is how law works. Not knowing the law doesn't excuse anyone in the eyes of law. I hope you know that. Be it retailer, or consumer or anyone else really - the law applies whether people know it or not. Contracts can be enforced only if you know them, though. And if people don't know what laws they have, nobody will tell them that for free or help them with it - people like that are called lawyers and they charge A LOT for the pleasure. This is how adult life works.

And again, if you have a good rapport with the other person (yes, person, not corporation!), you can get a lot of help - not just with retailers but in general. The moment you see them as enemy you make yourself their enemy on a personal level, and they'll do a lot to NOT help you instead. This is my main point really - know your laws to explain what you want exactly, be polite with good rapport and you can usually get what you want, easily, quickly, with a smile. Start a war prematurely and both sides start digging in trenches and it turns into a slow painful process. No matter what you think your rights are, the other person have a right to not be abused or serve you if you can't behave. They're fully legally allowed to hang up on a person who yells at them for example. It's just basic societal norm.

This is what ****** me off about this whole topic. It should not matter what you do or do not know, how loud or softly spoken you are

But it does. Because you don't deal with machines but with human beings (usually). But worry not, soon enough they will all get replaced by machine learning bots and then you will miss the good old days where you could actually chat to a human. This already happens and frankly drives me crazy - these are the walls that are very hard to climb over to get to actual person and be able to move things forth.

I had 2 washing machines, back to back that leaked recently. Not only did the retailer drag me onto a joint call with the manfacturer (despite me clearly expressing that I was exercising my consumer rights with the retailer, ergo nothing to do with the manufacturer) but would not replace the machine until I had willingly made it leak again and recorded a video of it as evidence. As if I had anything to gain from going through all the hassle of changing a damn washing machine that I'd just bought.

Ok, so it was replaced once already and the second one had exactly same issue? That's, technically speaking, very unlikely (but not impossible) to happen, especially if nobody else reported such. So, think about it this way - what if the issue was actually very simple to fix and not leaking machine but something unrelated, e.g. a seal in the water supply? If retailer isn't present on site (e.g. different city), machine is big and heavy, takes time to replace, etc. - isn't it better to check with manufacturer first (not you but them doing it - as in this example), to be sure something isn't just an easy to correct issue before moving to a replacement? Especially, considering the latter would need someone present at home, takes few days to happen, takes time, noise, risks damage of the property when moving things in and out, increases blood pressure of the customer even more etc.? Retailer needs to consider all these things and try to figure out what would work best for the consumer, even if consumer wouldn't even think about it. You just want stuff to work straight away - which is reasonable to expect, but unexpected things do happen. That is just life. It doesn't mean everyone and everything is against you, seriously.

 

[Tinek]

If I buy a multi-hundred-pound item that goes faulty within warranty and they refuse to repair/replace/refund, then there is zero chance of me shopping there again.
Having said that, I've never been "banned" from somewhere for going through my credit card company, it isn't even called a "chargeback" in the UK, thats a US thing and the process here is different, it follows a quasi legal process where the CC company determine if legally you are entitled to a refund and then if you are they issue one, so the company are in no worse of a position after the process as you only get a refund from the CC company if you are legally entitled to one.

No, you confuse things. Chargeback is internationally the same process everywhere, as it's provided directly by Visa, Mastercard etc. - not by your bank. And it hits retailers with hefty fees for this happening, so they will ban you for that. However, in UK you also have another process called Section 75, provisioned by UK law and provided by banks. They're similar but not the same things: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org...-borrowing-money/goods-services-bought-credit
Section 75 doesn't work if one uses for example PayPal as the payment processor and the likes. Chargeback can still work in such cases, AFAIK.

I've done this with major retailers and I'm still able to purchase from them.

You used Section 75 I believe, which doesn't slap a hefty fee for it on retailer, but also has some restrictions that chargeback doesn't (but also has some advantages).

There is no "retailers ombudsman", there is a financial one but to get access to that you would already have had to go through the CC company and be unhappy with the result to then take it to the ombudsman.

Wrong word used by me, generally I am thinking Citizens Advice, they always provided me good info and referred me to proper place in a specific cases. That said, generally to see all the available ombudsman services I tend to use this too: https://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/find-ombudsman

Interestingly, there is a Retailers ADR (alternative dispute resolution) website, and one of their first tips in dealing with retailers is... buy things on credit card so that you can deal with the CC company instead of having to take retailer to ADR

CC and Section 75 or chargeback work, yes. Rapport with the retailer (and generally picking up a good one in the first place) work even better, usually. ADR can be helpful, but takes time.

 

[Tinek]

So if this problem affects only a handful of cards then that's like 99% of the the cards in circulation.

That's what I was thinking reading about melting power cables in a handful of cases for 5090 cards.

 

[andybird123]

No, you confuse things. Chargeback is internationally the same process everywhere, as it's provided directly by Visa, Mastercard etc. - not by your bank. And it hits retailers with hefty fees for this happening, so they will ban you for that. However, in UK you also have another process called Section 75, provisioned by UK law and provided by banks. They're similar but not the same things: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org...-borrowing-money/goods-services-bought-credit
Section 75 doesn't work if one uses for example PayPal as the payment processor and the likes. Chargeback can still work in such cases, AFAIK.

You used Section 75 I believe, which doesn't slap a hefty fee for it on retailer, but also has some restrictions that chargeback doesn't (but also has some advantages).

Wrong word used by me, generally I am thinking Citizens Advice, they always provided me good info and referred me to proper place in a specific cases. That said, generally to see all the available ombudsman services I tend to use this too: https://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/find-ombudsman

CC and Section 75 or chargeback work, yes. Rapport with the retailer (and generally picking up a good one in the first place) work even better, usually. ADR can be helpful, but takes time.

There is no ombudsman on that list that applies to UK retail. ADR is the only option and ADR recommends you use CC company first.

You haven't got a clue what your talking about mate, there is no penalty on the consumer for using your credit card company to get your money back, I've never had a retailer refuse an order because I'd used my CC company to step in and arbitrate a complaint. Why should we care if retailers who give crap customer service get stung for charges for the customer having to go to someone else to get the money back when its the retailers job to refund? They should get fined for behaving illegally anyway.

Section 75 is a legal definition, you only actually invoke it if you take the retailer to court, it isn't a process that you go through with the credit card company, you can threaten to use it but it never goes that far in my experience.

IF you're going to use paypal for large value items, use Paypal Credit, you then get Section 75 protection from Paypal themselves.

 

[Pooh]

Variable refresh rate (e.g. Gsync/Freesync)

Thanks

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

And if people don't know what laws they have, nobody will tell them that for free or help them with it

This is just a whole bunch of gish-galloping. I really do not want to misrepresent your argument but it genuinely seems like you're advocating for retailers denying a consumer their rights purely because they are not knowledgable on said rights or are not assertive enough. This is a very weird hill to die on. A shop should do what they are legally obliged to do, regardless of what the customer does or doesn't know. The customer getting irate also shouldn't be a pre-requisite of the retailer doing what they're supposed to be doing either. This is getting off-topic, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Tinek]

This is just a whole bunch of gish-galloping. I really do not want to misrepresent your argument but it genuinely seems like you're advocating for retailers denying a consumer their rights purely because they are not knowledgable on said rights or are not assertive enough. This is a very weird hill to die on. A shop should do what they are legally obliged to do, regardless of what the customer does or doesn't know. The customer getting irate also shouldn't be a pre-requisite of the retailer doing what they're supposed to be doing either. This is getting off-topic, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again, wrong interpretation. We live in a world where corporations (not just retailers, ALL corporations) will do their best to suck monies out of you and give you little in return. One can either be a victim, or learn ones rights. Retail is more or less under legal control in UK, but not so much with manufacturers, services and many other places that want our monies. What I argue for is for people to learn their rights so they know what and how and when to use. Precisely, with much less stress. Yelling at people usually won't get a good response, presenting ones proper rights might. If one doesn't know their rights the corporations surely will NOT just tell them what their rights are and it's easy to be taken for a ride. Talking with people in civilised manner is one thing, using your rights when dealing with corporate entity is another thing. The first one can help with the second one and speed things up. I hope this is clear now? Because we don't disagree, you just interpret everything as a personal attack against you, it feels - which this is NOT the case.

 

[throwaway4372]

Someone was wrong on the internet .gif

 

[Nitefly]

No, that's wrong. I know what you're trying to say here, but exact wording matters - it can't be called a warranty/guarantee, as these require specific document with terms listed and be named as such, along with stating exactly who will deal with that in case of a claim. It is NOT by default a seller, it's whoever is stated in the document (which in this way can be treated as a contract). If there are no terms of warranty and proper document attached, then you're not getting any warranty really - just false claim by retailer, for which they're legally responsible.

Uh… well, I do at least agree that exact wording does matter

First, some bonus context and a clarification. Taking it at its face value legal meaning, a ‘warranty’ just means a term of a contract that amounts to a contractual promise, for which there is a remedy of damages if there is a breach. It contrasts with (and is less important than) a ‘condition’ which is the other sort of term that forms part of a contract. A consumer sales contract, like any contract, is formed of both ‘conditions’ and ‘warranties’.

With apologies for not being precise at first instance (although it's not really the point of contention), when I said these two things:

(III) There are then warranties that are provided to consumers as part of a sale contract with a retailer as a matter of law.

The article you linked to simply states that the type of warranty referred to in (III) always applies.

I acknowledge that should have fleshed this out to fully say this:

(III) There are then warranties that are provided to consumers as part of a sale contract with a retailer, both (i) as per the contractual terms of the sale, and (ii) the warranties and conditions inferred as a matter of law e.g. Consumer Rights Act (CRA).

The article you linked to simply states that the type of warranties and conditions referred to in (III)(ii) always applies.

And that is what the article you linked to means: as a seller you might still have to deal with consumer returns even if a manufacturer's warranty has expired.

We were are at cross purposes slightly as you didn't understand, and I concede that I didn't fully explain, what I meant when I was referring to 'warranties'. Across your posts you seem to be referring to the ‘colloquial consumer meaning’ of a contractual promise to make good any defects in a consumer purchase, which is a narrower meaning of 'warranty'. So a misunderstanding between us but no biggy.

Now, with what you say here:

it can't be called a warranty/guarantee, as these require specific document with terms listed and be named as such, along with stating exactly who will deal with that in case of a claim. It is NOT by default a seller, it's whoever is stated in the document (which in this way can be treated as a contract). If there are no terms of warranty and proper document attached, then you're not getting any warranty really - just false claim by retailer, for which they're legally responsible.

(We've already dealt with there being different types of warranty so no need to go over that again)

On “warranties not by default being the seller, it’s whoever is in the contract” - well, admittedly generalising yet also technically speaking, no. Your contract is by default always with seller, because save for some academic exceptions and positions reserved by statute, you can’t contractually bind a third party without a passing of consideration passing directly between those parties. This is why collateral warranties in land transactions / construction are made as a written deed to the beneficiary, because the act of executing the warranty as a ‘deed’ makes it enforceable. If you review CRA, you'll see that all of the implied terms form part of contract to supply goods (i.e. the contract between the consumer and the retailer). This is why @SeeNoWeevil was correct when he initially said 'your right of recourse is against the seller'. It's also the reason why I suggested you might be confused on these topics.

However, there is a statutory exception for consumer contracts set out in section 30 of CRA which makes guarantees enforceable against manufacturers if they are representing that they will deal with defects etc. Hence me referring to a manufacturer’s warranty being given as a ‘gesture of good will’, because manufacturers are not obliged to give them and they are not a party to the sale contract. If we are being precise (let's!) then it's not correct to say "it's whoever is in the contract" because if a seller just throws down a guarantors name in the terms of a sales contract willy-nilly, this will not bind the manufacturer to provide a guarantee. It would have to be genuinely offered. And, again, the bulk of implied terms form part of the contract with the retailer.

If in some very unlikely scenario that I bought an ASUS motherboard that went wrong from OcUK and both refused to deal with it and I had a particularly bee in my bonnet about it / felt I was justified in getting a replacement / some remedy and (!) had unlimited money and time, then I would be taking legal action against OcUK and ASUS for breach of CRA. But I would have exhausted all other avenues first.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Tinek]

There is no ombudsman on that list that applies to UK retail. ADR is the only option and ADR recommends you use CC company first.

I agreed with you in my post.

You haven't got a clue what your talking about mate, there is no penalty on the consumer for using your credit card company to get your money back, I've never had a retailer refuse an order because I'd used my CC company to step in and arbitrate a complaint.

I haven't said that, I said if you use chargeback (not Section 75) Visa/Mastercard will get that money back and slap a fee on the retailer as a punishment. Such retailers tend to ban buyer from deling with them again in the future. This isn't the case with Section 75. As I said previously, 2 different things and I was very clear what I am talking about.

Why should we care if retailers who give crap customer service get stung for charges for the customer having to go to someone else to get the money back when its the retailers job to refund? They should get fined for behaving illegally anyway.

I've seen cases of smaller indie devs going down after releasing just one game which sold relatively well, but a bunch of the keys were bought with stolen CC, then chargebacks fees took more monies from them that they earned selling game. Do you think they did some illegal behaviour and should be punished? You can't just swing around blank statements like that, nothing in life is black and white, not always is customer right and sometimes chargebacks aren't actually aimed well at the right entity (but still happen). Again, there's a reason we have Section 75 that works bit differently in UK and tries to avoid such situations.

IF you're going to use paypal for large value items, use Paypal Credit, you then get Section 75 protection from Paypal themselves.

Yes, PP has their own protection mechanisms, but they remove your card's protection S75 mechanisms (as per my link earlier) and then good luck dealing with PP. I had this unpleasant experience a few times and I rather avoid it in the future.

 

[SuperElectric]

Can mods move this consumer protection debate to a seperate thread? I thought this should be about NVIDIA's new driver problems?

 

[Ayahuasca]

This ^ I’ll be sending this thread to that asteroid that’s on route so it can course correct and actually hit us.

 

[andybird123]

Yes, PP has their own protection mechanisms, but they remove your card's protection S75 mechanisms (as per my link earlier) and then good luck dealing with PP. I had this unpleasant experience a few times and I rather avoid it in the future.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a thing called "paypal credit" which is through paypal, but it IS credit and therefore complies with UK Consumer Credit Act 1974 including section 75.

As I've already said to you repeatedly, I've used my credit card to get my money back a dozen times or so, no retailer has ever black listed me for doing so, I don't know why you're trying to scare people in to not excercising their rights.

You don't "use chargeback" in the UK, you contact your credit card company, they decide what mechanism they are going to use to refund the money to you as the consumer, your relationship is with the credit card company and as the consumer you have zero influence over what mechanism they use to reclaim the money. In the US you phone up and tell them you want to chargeback and that you as the consumer accept potential legal action against you as a result, in the UK we don't do that, and whether the retailer gets fined or not is completely out of your hands and irrelevant. There is no "section 75 mechanism", section 75 means that the credit card company can be held liable jointly with the retailer IF you take them to court, you don't "use section 75" if you just phone up your CC company over a faulty GPU.

 

[Tinek]

I concede that I didn't fully explain, what I meant when I was referring to 'warranties'. Across your posts you seem to be referring to the ‘colloquial consumer meaning’ of a contractual promise to make good any defects in a consumer purchase, which is a narrower meaning of 'warranty'. So a misunderstanding between us but no biggy.

To be clear from my side, since we're on graphics cards enthusiasts forums, I do try to stick to the meaning that's commonly used here for a warranty and of course makes things as super simple as possible for day to day use. For any more complex stuff I would refer one to a proper solicitor.

On “warranties not by default being the seller, it’s whoever is in the contract” - well, admittedly generalising yet also technically speaking, no. Your contract is by default always with seller, because save for some academic exceptions and positions reserved by statute, you can’t contractually bind a third party without a passing of consideration passing directly between those parties. This is why collateral warranties in land transactions / construction are made as a written deed to the beneficiary, because the act of executing the warranty as a ‘deed’ makes it enforceable. If you review CRA, you'll see that all of the implied terms form part of contract to supply goods (i.e. the contract between the consumer and the retailer). This is why @SeeNoWeevil was correct when he initially said 'your right of recourse is against the seller'. It's also the reason why I suggested you might be confused on these topics.

As I stated in one of my other responses, contacting the seller is still a good idea, irrelevant of the warranty card one can find in the box - for various reasons (I did mention a few, including easier refunds/exchange etc.). Again, we're talking about the typical real life situations, simplified to the smallest bone. I don't expect any average "joe" to be able to do more than that without long research or contacting external help (ombudsman, solicitor, Citizens Advice etc.) anyway. That said, I don't disagree with anything you said.

However, there is a statutory exception for consumer contracts set out in section 30 of CRA which makes guarantees enforceable against manufacturers if they are representing that they will deal with defects etc. Hence me referring to a manufacturer’s warranty being given as a ‘gesture of good will’, because manufacturers are not obliged to give them and they are not a party to the sale contract.

I got it, but again, it's mostly a distinction between legal naming of things and simple reality of why it happens (competition/public pressure making them give warranties at all, otherwise they likely wouldn't). To be clear - agreed.

If we are being precise (let's!) then it's not correct to say "it's whoever is in the contract" because if a seller just throws down a guarantors name in the terms of a sales contract willy-nilly, this will not bind the manufacturer to provide a guarantee. It would have to be genuinely offered. And, again, the bulk of implied terms form part of the contract with the retailer.

Seems I wasn't clear here as it starts to get muddy when we get into the "Extended warranty" offered by a seller, which in reality is an insurance sold by a 3rd party, and who is then responsible for which bit etc. Also, warranty (in the colloquial meaning mentioned earlier) doesn't even have to be provided by a manufacturer, as I've seen some provided by an importer or distributor. Things again get a bit more muddy then.

If in some very unlikely scenario that I bought an ASUS motherboard that went wrong from OcUK and both refused to deal with it and I had a particularly bee in my bonnet about it / felt I was justified in getting a replacement / some remedy and (!) had unlimited money and time, then I would be taking legal action against OcUK and ASUS for breach of CRA. But I would have exhausted all other avenues first.

So this isn't different from what I said in few of my other responses here - good rapport with the person on the other side helps speed things up, politeness doesn't hurt. Knowing who owns us what and how, helps a lot (even in a very simplified, basic form). External help like Citizens Advice can give good pointers too. There's generally quite a few different approaches before legal battle is needed.

I hope that clears things up.

It does and same from my position.

 

[Tinek]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a thing called "paypal credit" which is through paypal, but it IS credit and therefore complies with UK Consumer Credit Act 1974 including section 75.

I don't know how that stands against anything I said, or the link I provided. Did you check that link? There are plenty more that pretty much show the same distinction between chargeback and S75 claim in CC only. S75 doesn't work on debit cards, chargeback does, to name one of the biggest ones. Both work in UK, but only S75 is the actual legal protection. Each have different outcome for the seller too, as described.

You don't "use chargeback" in the UK, you contact your credit card company, they decide what mechanism they are going to use to refund the money to you as the consumer, your relationship is with the credit card company and as the consumer you have zero influence over what mechanism they use to reclaim the money.

According to quite a few articles, that's not the rule in UK - plenty of articles in reputable places advising CONSUMER which road to choose and how they differ. It might have been your experience but that's a different thing. From Experian website, just to give you a different angle:
"Unlike Section 75, chargeback isn’t a legal requirement, it is simply a voluntary scheme that some banks have signed up to. If your bank is a member of chargeback, then any spending on your card can be disputed, and you can potentially get your money back." - this is in UK, to be clear.

whether the retailer gets fined or not is completely out of your hands and irrelevant.

It's relevant to the seller, which is what I described. You seem to be doing a strawman here for some reason, bringing up points I've not stated and then trying to argue against them?